You'd take out a policy that didn't involve an investigation of your death? Pretty lousy policy.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
The trouble with what you are proposing is that it does not promote freedom or liberty.
Many would say that what either of us proposes is unfeasible, that I can understand. To those I would simply say, imagine you are in a feudal village in say 14th century England, stand in the town square and propose a new social and economic system, let's call it capitalism with representative democracy and a unitary state. You would be laughed out of the village. How can you possibly own property without permission of the local lord, how can you claim that commoners (including women) should choose the government and that the monarch should abide by their decisions, how can property be exclusive and not include reciprocal responsibilities? All of these would be foreign to a feudal mindset, yet here we are, a few centuries later and the world transformed into something unimaginable. It will transform into something unimaginable again, it always does.
Where we completely part ways is in what you propose as a desirable society.
Your critique is that the problem is that the state has a monopoly on making and enforcing laws. Effectively your position is that the monopolisation of coercive power by the state is the problem.
My issue is that coercive power is the problem and that privatising coercive power changes nothing. A monopoly of overlords, an oligopoly of overlords (most likely), even a competitive market of overlords - all are enemies of freedom and liberty. None of these options address the fundamental issue of coercive power.
You cannot get around coercive power if you want enforceable private property.
You also spend a lot of time telling people how they should behave, and then want to draw me in to the same cul de sac. It is anti-liberty, anti-freedom, to try and impose your own ideology on everyone else by telling people how they should act.
I'll leave my objection to telling people how they should act to Malatesta: We want the people to emancipate themselves.
DS
the policy they took out did mention death but there is no one who is going to enforce it, anyway ive already claimed self defence and the PI i paid funnily agreed that i have no case to answer, and that the estate of the dead guys should give me all their money due to the harm they caused me when they attacked me leading to me killing them (in self defence) then claiming there land as no living person could should they were entitled- again funnily enough the court i paid to find in my favour found in my favour. other parties who thought they had a claim to the land tried to go through other courts but i didnt recognise their jurisdiction on my land. (i am beginning to like this libertarian utopia.)
I can trust your private protection
They took out a policy that mentioned death but there was no one around to enforce it? That doesn’t make sense. Either their deaths are covered by investigative services or they are not. Not having it in your policy would be a tad silly. What good is a protection service that doesn’t protect against someone murdering you? If I was a customer of this service I’d find a better alternative immediately. Said protection service would soon find themselves losing business and going bankrupt. Not like the current protection service. They are not under any obligation to protect you but you are forced to pay for them anyway.
Dealing with third parties under a different set of laws is something that would have to be dealt with. Third party arbitration would form a key aspect of any contract. If your protection agency was complicit in your act of murder, they would find themselves in a spot of bother when dealing with everyone else. They would find themselves in breach of agreements they signed and therefore subject to penalties (in this case their dissolution and your arrest).
No you really don’t. I never suggested everyone is well intentioned, but the overall level of well intentioned people would make rogue armed militias something very unlikely.
Why would it? Anyone can set up a militia - this militia can behave as it wants, it has the guns, numbers and financial backing. If you live an area under its control, you must abide by its rules and pay the "protection fee". Your only recourse is to "join another protection agency". What if there isn't one in your area? What if there was one but the dominant "agency" kicked it out? You have to move. If your friendly neighbourhood militia allows you to of course.
there was no one around to enforce it because they were dead. the agency then decided it wasnt worth their time and effort to investigate.
this agency is owned by people who also own about half the mainstream media in the area (i own the other half). not many people heard about them not following up.,in fact all most people heard were positive stories about them.
i should stop writing about this now. i fear i will give away the plot to a best seller i am thinking about writing.
You’ve just perfectly described the world we currently live in. The difference with a private law society is that there are other options, competition is allowed.
The protection agency are the enforcers not the people you murdered. You haven’t killed them. The agency decided it wasn’t worth their time, you mean they are reneging on their contractual obligation. Why would they do that? It would lead to their bankruptcy.
Oh they control the media too? I keep getting confused, are we talking about the reality we live in or an alternative? Wouldn’t seem like a good idea to sign a contract with this group, especially if there are rumours that they are reneging on their contracts.
No surprises there. Once the coronavirus is at bay I hope that the blowtorch is applied.
www.abc.net.au
New emails show PM had involvement in sports grants, Labor claims
Labor argues fresh details of emails between the offices of Scott Morrison and now-former cabinet minister Bridget McKenzie show the Prime Minister had personal involvement in approving a list of successful clubs under the much maligned community sports grants scheme.
www.abc.net.au
Our current world is far from perfect, but I prefer a democratically elected government, a professional police force, a system of codified rules and laws created by our elected representatives, and an independent judicial system.
Prefer that to private companies making rules for me that I must comply with, charging me a fee, leaving me the choice only of leaving that area and hoping to find another private company that will treat me better. No thanks.
A democratically elected government in which your vote is meaningless and it’s policies are fostered on you that you don’t agree with, a monopoly police force that you are forced to pay for regardless of the quality of their service, a system of legislation that continually involves intervention by government in the free market with its inherent coercion by a majority—or, more often, by an oligarchy of pseudo-"representatives" of a majority—over the rest of the population and a judiciary that surprise surprise continually finds in favour of the government that appoints them and again you have to pay for regardless of the quality of their service.
You only have to comply to the extent that you actually sign a contract, the fee is rather less than the taxes you currently pay and you actually have readily available options instead of now having very little options.
What a service you have provided! It’s probably best to prepare yourself for ideas that run counter to statism especially given statism is engrained in most people due to the influence of government in education funnily enough.
Wow ! A post about politics in the talking politics thread ....No surprises there. Once the coronavirus is at bay I hope that the blowtorch is applied.
New emails show PM had involvement in sports grants, Labor claims
Labor argues fresh details of emails between the offices of Scott Morrison and now-former cabinet minister Bridget McKenzie show the Prime Minister had personal involvement in approving a list of successful clubs under the much maligned community sports grants scheme.
No surprises there. Once the coronavirus is at bay I hope that the blowtorch is applied.
New emails show PM had involvement in sports grants, Labor claims
Labor argues fresh details of emails between the offices of Scott Morrison and now-former cabinet minister Bridget McKenzie show the Prime Minister had personal involvement in approving a list of successful clubs under the much maligned community sports grants scheme.
I won’t hold my breath. Dan Andrews got away with the Red Shirts campaign. Voters don’t hold them accountable enough.
For example Dutton and Richard Di Natalie can leave property of their own personal asset register and no one cares. They don’t to put water entitlements on the register where both sides of have rumoured huge entitlements despite not owning farms.
Did feel watching Albanese's press conference this morning that even if Morrison had of personally signed off on this rort, that it's going to be very difficult in the current environment to lay a blow. Morrison has dodged a bullet with the timing of the coronavirus.
